If we include the dead from another's members of the coalition from another country's the toll go so far 4,500 soldiers dead. This number the media show now constitute the bulks of Americans soldiers and few civilians working for the differents military branches. This numbers do not include members of the government dead, and other civilians and of course do not include the carnage of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Percy H Florez

If we include the dead from another's members of the coalition from another country's the toll go so far than 4,500 soldiers dead. This number the media show now constitute the bulks of Americans soldiers and few civilians working for the differents military branches. This numbers do not include members of the government dead, and other civilians and of course do not include the carnage of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Percy H Florez

Republicans have no regard for life, no matter how much they claim to be "pro-life".
They have contributed heavily to the "Culture of Death" that Pope John Paul II warned about.
The bottom line is that the Republicans are antisocial, uncaring for human beings outside their own clique, immoral, racist, domineering sociopaths, who talk about being anti-Communist, but seem to be copying the Marxist dictum of the "ends justify the means" to the nth degree.

Lying to start a "war" for financial gain is murder.

The right to life does not begin at birth.

The Constitution of the United States is not "just a piece of paper"

Human beings are more important than corporations.

If this goes on for another year we won't have a country left.

IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY NOW!!!!

GET THAT BILL OUR OF COMMITTEE AND ACT ON IT!!!!!

Let's not forget the 106,000 Americans who die every year right here in America from the dangerous drugs that they are given by their doctors. Compared to the 17,000 deaths from illicit drugs, the numbers of people killed by legal drugs is staggering.

The frightening thing is that these numbers don't include the strokes and heart attacks caused by the legally prescribed drugs that the FDA has unleashed on a trusting public, the vast majority for pain. Vioxx, Celebrex, Procrit, the list of drugs that cause stroke and heart attack goes on and on.

And while I appreciate the sacrifice that each of those soldiers has made, I also realize that they knew the dangers when they strapped on a weapon and marched off to war while most Americans have NO IDEA how much danger they put themselves in every time they go to the doctor or stay in the hospital.

gro4me,

the statistic you cite doesn't really stack up to the deaths in Iraq.
In terms of per-capita chances of making it through, hospital visits are MUCH safer than a tour of duty in Iraq.

There are dangers in anything you do, and saying that the person taking a prescribed drug (which is required by law to list side-effects, in addition to law requiring doctors to inform patients of the possible risks and benefits of taking prescription medications) is unaware of the danger is just wrong.

Don't imply that people who are going to a hospital are sacrificing as much as people who go to war. There is simply no comparison.

Our men and women have given too much to deny them our love and consideration.

Part of that love should be shown by taking them out of harm, and approaching the problems in Iraq with open eyes and an open mind.
To me, that means withdrawl of troops in order to force the government to fix the problems.

I believe that this war is totally ubsurd and that these tolls of death prove that this war is wrong. I am truly astonished by the numbers that was presented in the number of deaths of soldiers. This is why the Republicans are unjust in this matter and that Obama will set this straight to me

gro4me, we're not talking about American deaths in general, we're talking about American soldiers dying for a cause brought on by Republicans. Some soldiers may be for the war, some may be against, this does not change the fact that American citizens and Iraqi citizens are dying daily.
This war needs to stop, not just for America, but for Iraq too. Health care is a seperate issue, and you cannot compare it to the war in Iraq.

gro4me, we're not talking about American deaths in general, we're talking about American soldiers dying for a cause brought on by Republicans. Some soldiers may be for the war, some may be against, this does not change the fact that American citizens and Iraqi citizens are dying daily.
This war needs to stop, not just for America, but for Iraq too. Health care is a seperate issue, and you cannot compare it to the war in Iraq.

Grow4me: Most doctors do not deliberately set out to kill their patients.
Bush cold-bloodedly started a war, dispassionately lied to start it, has never told the truth about his motives which had nothin to do with Bin Laden, and is therefore a murderer and a war criminal who has killed thousands, not only of our kids, but innocent Iraqi civilians including hundreds of women and children.
You are so wrapped up in prating about pot that you have lost sight of common sense, decency and compassion.
Get out of your self-induced cloud and grow up!

I fully agree with Butte!
Therefore i must say, that i have lost my trust to America and to the Democrats. For now over a year since the Democrats have get the POWER(I think, that the Democrats have a problem with this thing called POWER!) this immoral war goes on and on, Bush and Cheney are still in "Office", Bin Laden is alive and free! Even if the next President will be a Democrat one, they will never, never get the trust back! The world knows why the Americans are in IRAQ, why they have OCCUPIED it and destroyed it. I am sad about the over one million dead Iraqis. They have died for the insanity of an corrupt sociophat who is in "Office" for now over 6 years.
Please, Democrats read this and ACT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(sociology)#Types_and_sources_of_power

When will this MESS have an end?

brian, the democrats will not be able to do anything about the war in iraq untill we get a veto proof congress,everytime we try to do something about withdrawing the troops,we get vetos,we cant get enough repugs to join us so its a brick wall.

Doctors don't set out to kill their patients most of the time (there are exceptions, notably one doctor Pattell out here in Oregon who is suspected in the deaths of over 150 patients who I believe has been extradited to Australia) but doctors rely on the FDA to be honest about side effects of drugs and to fully test them. The FDA has repeatedly allowed drugs onto the market without enough safety testing.

106,000 Americans die every year from the drugs that their doctor thought were safe. But look at all the Black Box warnings that came out years after certain drugs came to market. Meanwhile, a drug that could reduce most of those deaths is fought with helicopters, assault rifles and urine tests.

And then there is the massive problem of oxycontin addiction that spread across the nation because the company that makes it LIED about how addictive it is. But good old Rudy Giuliani came to the rescue and brokered a deal with the FDA on their fines.

Or the new trend of treating older patients with methadone (the drug they use for weaning junkies off heroin) for their pain. The problem is that the pain relief effect wears off before the drug is metabolized, so patients tend to overdose and kill themselves by accident. Great way to thin the ranks of those pesky folks who might collect Social Security.

The War on Marijuana was started by a bureaucratic bigot and was based entirely on lies. Over a Trillion dollars has been wasted with no return on the investment: drug use rates are higher every year, purity is up, cost is down, kids are turning to prescription drugs as their drugs of choice (like in the 70's). Innocent American civilians like Kathryn Johnston have been killed in botched drug raids.

JKAR,

I am not denying anyone any love or compassion.

I believe strongly that our boys and girls need to come home as soon as possible. I have a personal stake in it: I'd really like for my baby sister to come home alive and unhurt from this war.

gro4me, we're not talking about American deaths in general, we're talking about American soldiers dying for a cause brought on by Republicans. Some soldiers may be for the war, some may be against, this does not change the fact that American citizens and Iraqi citizens are dying daily.
This war needs to stop, not just for America, but for Iraq too. Health care is a seperate issue, and you cannot compare it to the war in Iraq.

Posted by PioneerKantrowitz on November 7, 2007 at 01:43 PM

Our police forces conduct over 40,000 military-style raids annually in the US in the course of waging the War on Drugs. Innocent civilian Americans are terrorized and sometimes tortured and killed in their homes in the name of the war on drugs. The War on Drugs is a war on American citizens on American soil, carried out by a our own government. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled.

It is absolutely as much of a problem as the war in Iraq.

Thankfully, all the warring factions have decided to take a break and join our military personnel in pulling over to the side of the road till we get a Commander-in-Chief who isn't a chimp.

It's a sign that everyone knows there is a rational way of figuring this out rather than chasing after insurgents, blowing up roads and mosques, and blaming it all on Iran.

I believe that we should start pulling troops out of Iraq now. If we care enough about these men and women who are defending our country, then we will begin to bring them home. I know that we cannot bring them all back at once, because that would cause chaos, but we should at least start.

I absolutely agree that republicans are holding up us pulling out of Iraq. As much as i usually agree with the Democratic party this is the right thing becasue though going into Iraq was a bad thing we are there now and we can't just let the peices fall so this is the deal.

We can whine and complain and let Iraq suffer or stay and fight and think of a plan along the way. i conceed that we should have had a better plan before we went in but we didn't simple fact is we are there and we have to get out but in a smart way!!!

And i know currently you are probably saying well whats your plan well i dont have a plan ,but i know what shouldn't be the plan CUTTING AND RUNNING it will definately lead to BACKLASH

I absolutely agree that republicans are holding up us pulling out of Iraq. As much as i usually agree with the Democratic party this is the right thing becasue though going into Iraq was a bad thing we are there now and we can't just let the peices fall so this is the deal.

We can whine and complain and let Iraq suffer or stay and fight and think of a plan along the way. i conceed that we should have had a better plan before we went in but we didn't simple fact is we are there and we have to get out but in a smart way!!!

And i know currently you are probably saying well whats your plan well i dont have a plan ,but i know what shouldn't be the plan CUTTING AND RUNNING it will definately lead to BACKLASH

I absolutely agree that republicans are holding up us pulling out of Iraq. As much as i usually agree with the Democratic party this is the right thing becasue though going into Iraq was a bad thing we are there now and we can't just let the peices fall so this is the deal.

We can whine and complain and let Iraq suffer or stay and fight and think of a plan along the way. i conceed that we should have had a better plan before we went in but we didn't simple fact is we are there and we have to get out but in a smart way!!!

And i know currently you are probably saying well whats your plan well i dont have a plan ,but i know what shouldn't be the plan CUTTING AND RUNNING it will definately lead to BACKLASH

I absolutely agree that republicans are holding up us pulling out of Iraq. As much as i usually agree with the Democratic party this is the right thing becasue though going into Iraq was a bad thing we are there now and we can't just let the peices fall so this is the deal.

We can whine and complain and let Iraq suffer or stay and fight and think of a plan along the way. i conceed that we should have had a better plan before we went in but we didn't simple fact is we are there and we have to get out but in a smart way!!!

And i know currently you are probably saying well whats your plan well i dont have a plan ,but i know what shouldn't be the plan CUTTING AND RUNNING it will definately lead to BACKLASH

I absolutely agree that republicans are holding up us pulling out of Iraq. As much as i usually agree with the Democratic party this is the right thing becasue though going into Iraq was a bad thing we are there now and we can't just let the peices fall so this is the deal.

We can whine and complain and let Iraq suffer or stay and fight and think of a plan along the way. i conceed that we should have had a better plan before we went in but we didn't simple fact is we are there and we have to get out but in a smart way!!!

And i know currently you are probably saying well whats your plan well i dont have a plan ,but i know what shouldn't be the plan CUTTING AND RUNNING it will definately lead to BACKLASH

Excuseme, YoungDem, but in case you hadn't noticed we are already dealing with a backlash in Iraq. The Iraqis want us to get the hell out and leave them alone.
How many more of these kids have to die or get maimed mentally and/or physically before you get a clue.
We had not justification to go into Iraq and we have no justification for staying, especially not under the badly deteriorating conditions caused by the Bush administration and their mismanagement of the whole mess.
"Cut and run" is a Republican propaganda phrase that they are using to spin attention away from the fact that they had unstated ulterior motives for going in there that had nothing to do with terrorists, Bin Laden, or fictitious WMDs.
Stop watching Faux news, and start lookng at reality!

I think that the Democrats are doing a good job in Congress. I want our troops to come home from Iraq because they are involved in a civil war. Our president cause innocent people to got kill over oil. Tell President Bush and the republican party to go to hell.

I think that the Democrats are doing a good job in Congress. I want our troops to come home from Iraq because they are involved in a civil war. Our president cause innocent people to got kill over oil. Tell President Bush and the republican party to go to hell.

I think that the Democrats are doing a good job in Congress. I want our troops to come home from Iraq because they are involved in a civil war. Our president cause innocent people to got kill over oil. Tell President Bush and the republican party to go to hell.

Nancy Pelosi Symbol of Liberal Caricature

Definition of Caricature: A picture or description in which features are exaggerated or distorted so as to produce an absurd effect.

Bugeyed Nancy Pelosi is NOT a Liberal. Bugeyed Nancy Pelosi is no more than a disingenous, artificial, disturbing and absurd caricature of a Liberal. A disturbing caricature much the same as Bella Lugosi is a caricature today in his portrayal of Dracula, a portrayal that although at one time was thought of as a serious portrayal, looks today like no more than a caricature; in the same way Nancy Pelosi once played the part of a Liberal, and that portrayal of a Liberal was once taken as a serious portrayal. However, that time has now passed, and much the same as Bella Lugosi's portrayal of Dracula, Nancy Pelosi's portrayal of a Liberal has become obvious as a disturbing caricature of a Liberal, rather than a Liberal.

The 70% majority common population of the United States needs better representation in Congress and the government of the United States than Nancy Pelosi as a disturbing caricature of a Liberal, a representative member of her own class and culture ONLY, the 20% minority professional middle class that plays the part of a laughably disturbing caricature of a Liberal, with no class and cultural interests at all in representing the 70% majority common population as a class and culture, as a Liberal, and has, is and will continue to represent her own class and culture, the professional middle class at the expense of the 70% majority common population of the United States solely as a disturbing caricature of a Liberal, rather than as a Liberal.

Nancy Pelosi should more appropriately be called "Nancy Lugosi" who like Bella Lugosi was not Dracula, but played Dracula in the movies and in time become a caricature of Dracula; Nancy Pelosi was never a Liberal part of the 70% majority common population as a class and culture. Nancy Pelosi is a part of the 20% minority professional middle class. As a part of the professional middle class and culture, a 20% minority population of the United States, Nancy Pelosi has, is and will continue to play the part of a Liberal in the Congress of the United States, and Nancy Pelosi's portrayal of a Liberal is now evident for all to see as no more than a disturbing caricature of a Liberal; rather than a Liberal, played by her as a member of the professional middle class, a NEW CLASS that seperated themselves from the Liberals of the 70% majority common population of the United States in favor of representing the "conservative interests" of the 20% minority professional middle class and "conserving the interests" of the professional middle class at the expense of the common population of the United States as a class and culture.

When will the 70% majority common population of the United States start to support representatives of their own common population in the Congress of the United States and quit relying upon disturbing bugeyed caricatures of political representation like Nancy Lugosi (Pelosi) that are not even a part of the 70% majority common population to represent the class and cultural interest of the 70% majority common population as a class and culture.

Constituents of the classes and cultures of the American aristocracy and the professional middle class when elected to Congress and the government of the United States will represent their own combined 30% minority class and cultural interests in Congress and the government of the United States, at the expense of the 70% majority common population of the United States as a class and culture. The 70% majority common population must support and elect its own class and cultural constituents to Congress and the government of the United States, build up the infrastructure of the common population as a class and culture, rely upon its own class and culture and representatives of its own class and culture, and quit relying upon caricature political representation by classes and cultures in competition with the class and cultural interests of the 70% majority common population to represent the political interests of the 70% majority common population of the United States as a class and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Zombie_%28movie%29

im writing from italy them apologize me for grammatical errors and others.

A lot of time ago,in 2001 the iraqui war appeared a simple,clean,QUICK war..
Is'nt possible that a country like usa with the (ex)most advanced technology and the bigger concentration of cultures and differences,begin an action so stupid like this.
is possible exportate democracy?the temocracy born after years and years of POLITICS battles,battles for human rights,and overall the democracy doesn't born only because i think mhhh...democracy is a good thing,i want that the stupid muslim know it,sure they'll say "thanks white man,for your gift!...
no

Try to see the reality with the other's eyes,not only with yours,and maybe you'll see the world that they see,no one has necessity of freedom,have you got freedom?
were?
in the patrioct act?
and how can you have the arrogance for make war to
saddam or almadinejad and others that in the last 20 years you paid,and were called (by you,not by me)freedom warriors?
The world is becaming a bit strange,i don't hate the states,i love states,for this i'm sayng you need a cange..
You haven't a free healt?! i'm surprised..
10.000.000.000 dollars for war and nothing,NOTHING,for healt?really surprised..
in italy if possible we have berlusconi,a fool man,prodi "the sleeping princess" mafia pizza mandulino and many more..in usa have war,death sentences,free guns,and MANY MORE..
would be beautiful if the world should see the "many more" of ours 2 countries..
sorry for the post's size,for errors and good night(in italy are the 1.21)
if you want to speak about send me an e mail

Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation'
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar
AlterNet

Friday 09 November 2007

Bush needs the UN's cover to justify the occupation, but the only way he can renew the expiring UN mandate is to cut Iraq's frail democracy out of the process.

The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It's an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it's in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq's nascent democracy (which needs all the legitimacy it can get).

While the Bush administration frequently invokes sunny visions of spreading democracy and "freedom" around the world, the fact remains that democracy is incompatible with its goals in Iraq. The fact remains that the biggest headache supporters of the occupation of Iraq have to deal with is the fact of the occupation itself. As far back as the middle of 2004, more than nine out of 10 Iraqis said the U.S.-led forces were "occupiers," and only 2 percent called them "liberators." Things have only gone downhill since then, and any government that represents the will of the Iraqi people would have no choice but to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. This fact poses an enormous problem, as the great triumph of the Bush administration and its supporters has been in their ability to convince as much of the Americans population that Iraqi interests and Washington's interests are in harmony, even when they're diametrically opposed.

Crucial to this fiction is a U.N. mandate that confers legal cover on the so-called "multinational" forces in Iraq. The mandate is now coming up for renewal, and a majority of Iraqi legislators oppose its renewal unless conditions are placed on it, conditions that may include a demand for a timetable for the departure of American troops.

The process of renewing the mandate is highlighting the political rift that's divided the country and fueled most of the violence that's plagued the new state. That's the rift between nationalists - those Iraqis who, like most of their countrymen, oppose the presence of foreign troops on the ground, the wholesale privatization of Iraq's natural resources and the division of their country into ethnic and sectarian fiefdoms, and Iraqi separatists who at least tolerate the occupation - if not support it - and favor a loose sectarian/ethnic-based federation of semiautonomous states held together by a minimal central government in Baghdad.

In the United States, the commercial media has largely ignored this story, focusing almost exclusively on sectarian violence and doing a poor job giving their readers and viewers a sense of what's driving Iraq's political crisis. An understanding of the tensions between nationalists and separatists is necessary to appreciate the import of the parliament being cut out of the legislative process and the degree to which doing so hurts the prospect of real political reconciliation among Iraq's many political factions. (We've discussed this dynamic in greater detail in an earlier article.)

The key ingredient to understand is this: The Iraqi executive branch - the cabinet and the presidency - are completely controlled by separatists (including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and secular politicians). But the parliament is controlled by nationalists - nationalists from every major ethnic and sectarian group in the country - who enjoy a small but crucially important majority in the only elected body in the Iraqi government.

In 2006, Maliki's office requested the renewal of the U.N. mandate without consulting the legislature, a process that many lawmakers maintained was a violation of Iraqi law. The problem was that Maliki didn't have the authority to make the request under the Iraqi constitution. Article 58, Section 4 says that the Council of Representatives (the parliament) has to ratify "international treaties and agreements" negotiated by the Council of Ministers (the cabinet). Specifically, it reads: "A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives."

Prime Minister Maliki had claimed that the constitution didn't refer to the U.N. mandate. A senior Iraqi lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the assertion: "If we are asked to approve a trade agreement concerning olive oil, should we not have the right to pass on an agreement concerning the stationing of foreign military forces in our national soil?"

In June, we reported that the parliament had passed a binding resolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president has 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically becomes a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto, so, according to the terms of the constitution, the Iraqi parliament's resolution became a law in mid-June 2007.

Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon's latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a "nonbinding resolution":

The Council of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution on 5 June obligating the cabinet to request parliament's approval on future extensions of the mandate governing the multinational force in Iraq and to include a timetable for the departure of the force from Iraq.

One might have believed that the disconnect was a simple mistake, if not for the fact that members of the Iraqi parliament, still fuming over being cut out of the process the year before, sent a letter to the U.N.'s special envoy for Iraq back in April clarifying the situation in very clear terms. According to an English translation provide by the Global Policy Forum, it says: "The Iraqi Cabinet has unilaterally requested a renewal of the U.N. mandate keeping the occupation troops (MNF) in Iraq" despite the fact that "such a request issued by the Iraqi cabinet without the Iraqi parliament's approval is unconstitutional." It continues: "The Iraqi parliament, as the elected representatives of the Iraqi people, has the exclusive right to approve and ratify international treaties and agreements, including those signed with the United Nations Security Council."

According to sources within the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, the letter, signed by 144 MPs -more than half of Iraq's legislators - was received in good order by the special envoy, Ashraf Qazi, but never distributed to the Security Council members, as is required under the U.N. resolution that governs the mandate. The parliament, and indeed the majority of the Iraqi population, had been cleanly excised from the legislative process.

The important thing to understand is that the run-around goes beyond the issue of the mandate itself. Iraq is not in the midst of an incomprehensible religious war over some obscure theological differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims but is deeply and profoundly divided over fundamental questions about the future of the country. In cutting the nationalist majority in the parliament out of the process of governing, the Maliki administration, Bush administration and, apparently, the U.N. secretary-general are making political reconciliation much more difficult. History has offered the lesson time and time again: Deny people the right to participate in deciding their own destiny in a peaceful political process, and they'll try to do so with guns and bombs. The United Nations, like the administration and its supporters, and like Sen. Joe Biden and those who favor his plan for partitioning the country, is taking sides in a political battle that should be exclusively for Iraqis to decide.

If there were some similarities between the current Iraqi-Iraqi conflict and the U.S. civil war it is in having one side that wants to keep the country united, and another side planning to secede. All of the foreign forces that are intervening in Iraq's affairs - whether led by the United States, Iran or Al-Qaeda - are on the side of a minority of Iraqis who want to secede against the majority's will.

This U.N. mandate issue is not occurring in a vacuum. When it comes to the nascent Iraqi government, supporters of the occupation have long had their cake and eaten it too. On the one hand, they deny that the U.S.-led military force is an occupying army at all, maintaining that all those foreign troops are there at the "request" of the Iraqi government. That's an important legal nicety - occupying forces have a host of responsibilities under international law and acknowledging the reality of the occupation would result in more legal responsibilities for the administration to ignore. At the same time, when the only people who all those purple-fingered Iraqi voters actually elected to office try to attach some conditions to the U.N. mandate, demand a timetable for withdrawal or come out against privatizing Iraq's natural resources, and then somehow magically disappear, their hopes and aspirations are discarded as if they never existed.

It's time to force the issue: The Iraqi parliament, the only body elected by the Iraqi people, wants some say over the continuing presence of foreign troops on its soil, and a majority of its lawmakers, like a majority of both Americans and Iraqis, wants a timetable for ending the occupation.

----------

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.

Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation'
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar
AlterNet

Friday 09 November 2007

Bush needs the UN's cover to justify the occupation, but the only way he can renew the expiring UN mandate is to cut Iraq's frail democracy out of the process.

The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It's an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it's in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq's nascent democracy (which needs all the legitimacy it can get).

While the Bush administration frequently invokes sunny visions of spreading democracy and "freedom" around the world, the fact remains that democracy is incompatible with its goals in Iraq. The fact remains that the biggest headache supporters of the occupation of Iraq have to deal with is the fact of the occupation itself. As far back as the middle of 2004, more than nine out of 10 Iraqis said the U.S.-led forces were "occupiers," and only 2 percent called them "liberators." Things have only gone downhill since then, and any government that represents the will of the Iraqi people would have no choice but to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. This fact poses an enormous problem, as the great triumph of the Bush administration and its supporters has been in their ability to convince as much of the Americans population that Iraqi interests and Washington's interests are in harmony, even when they're diametrically opposed.

Crucial to this fiction is a U.N. mandate that confers legal cover on the so-called "multinational" forces in Iraq. The mandate is now coming up for renewal, and a majority of Iraqi legislators oppose its renewal unless conditions are placed on it, conditions that may include a demand for a timetable for the departure of American troops.

The process of renewing the mandate is highlighting the political rift that's divided the country and fueled most of the violence that's plagued the new state. That's the rift between nationalists - those Iraqis who, like most of their countrymen, oppose the presence of foreign troops on the ground, the wholesale privatization of Iraq's natural resources and the division of their country into ethnic and sectarian fiefdoms, and Iraqi separatists who at least tolerate the occupation - if not support it - and favor a loose sectarian/ethnic-based federation of semiautonomous states held together by a minimal central government in Baghdad.

In the United States, the commercial media has largely ignored this story, focusing almost exclusively on sectarian violence and doing a poor job giving their readers and viewers a sense of what's driving Iraq's political crisis. An understanding of the tensions between nationalists and separatists is necessary to appreciate the import of the parliament being cut out of the legislative process and the degree to which doing so hurts the prospect of real political reconciliation among Iraq's many political factions. (We've discussed this dynamic in greater detail in an earlier article.)

The key ingredient to understand is this: The Iraqi executive branch - the cabinet and the presidency - are completely controlled by separatists (including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and secular politicians). But the parliament is controlled by nationalists - nationalists from every major ethnic and sectarian group in the country - who enjoy a small but crucially important majority in the only elected body in the Iraqi government.

In 2006, Maliki's office requested the renewal of the U.N. mandate without consulting the legislature, a process that many lawmakers maintained was a violation of Iraqi law. The problem was that Maliki didn't have the authority to make the request under the Iraqi constitution. Article 58, Section 4 says that the Council of Representatives (the parliament) has to ratify "international treaties and agreements" negotiated by the Council of Ministers (the cabinet). Specifically, it reads: "A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives."

Prime Minister Maliki had claimed that the constitution didn't refer to the U.N. mandate. A senior Iraqi lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the assertion: "If we are asked to approve a trade agreement concerning olive oil, should we not have the right to pass on an agreement concerning the stationing of foreign military forces in our national soil?"

In June, we reported that the parliament had passed a binding resolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president has 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically becomes a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto, so, according to the terms of the constitution, the Iraqi parliament's resolution became a law in mid-June 2007.

Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon's latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a "nonbinding resolution":

The Council of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution on 5 June obligating the cabinet to request parliament's approval on future extensions of the mandate governing the multinational force in Iraq and to include a timetable for the departure of the force from Iraq.

One might have believed that the disconnect was a simple mistake, if not for the fact that members of the Iraqi parliament, still fuming over being cut out of the process the year before, sent a letter to the U.N.'s special envoy for Iraq back in April clarifying the situation in very clear terms. According to an English translation provide by the Global Policy Forum, it says: "The Iraqi Cabinet has unilaterally requested a renewal of the U.N. mandate keeping the occupation troops (MNF) in Iraq" despite the fact that "such a request issued by the Iraqi cabinet without the Iraqi parliament's approval is unconstitutional." It continues: "The Iraqi parliament, as the elected representatives of the Iraqi people, has the exclusive right to approve and ratify international treaties and agreements, including those signed with the United Nations Security Council."

According to sources within the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, the letter, signed by 144 MPs -more than half of Iraq's legislators - was received in good order by the special envoy, Ashraf Qazi, but never distributed to the Security Council members, as is required under the U.N. resolution that governs the mandate. The parliament, and indeed the majority of the Iraqi population, had been cleanly excised from the legislative process.

The important thing to understand is that the run-around goes beyond the issue of the mandate itself. Iraq is not in the midst of an incomprehensible religious war over some obscure theological differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims but is deeply and profoundly divided over fundamental questions about the future of the country. In cutting the nationalist majority in the parliament out of the process of governing, the Maliki administration, Bush administration and, apparently, the U.N. secretary-general are making political reconciliation much more difficult. History has offered the lesson time and time again: Deny people the right to participate in deciding their own destiny in a peaceful political process, and they'll try to do so with guns and bombs. The United Nations, like the administration and its supporters, and like Sen. Joe Biden and those who favor his plan for partitioning the country, is taking sides in a political battle that should be exclusively for Iraqis to decide.

If there were some similarities between the current Iraqi-Iraqi conflict and the U.S. civil war it is in having one side that wants to keep the country united, and another side planning to secede. All of the foreign forces that are intervening in Iraq's affairs - whether led by the United States, Iran or Al-Qaeda - are on the side of a minority of Iraqis who want to secede against the majority's will.

This U.N. mandate issue is not occurring in a vacuum. When it comes to the nascent Iraqi government, supporters of the occupation have long had their cake and eaten it too. On the one hand, they deny that the U.S.-led military force is an occupying army at all, maintaining that all those foreign troops are there at the "request" of the Iraqi government. That's an important legal nicety - occupying forces have a host of responsibilities under international law and acknowledging the reality of the occupation would result in more legal responsibilities for the administration to ignore. At the same time, when the only people who all those purple-fingered Iraqi voters actually elected to office try to attach some conditions to the U.N. mandate, demand a timetable for withdrawal or come out against privatizing Iraq's natural resources, and then somehow magically disappear, their hopes and aspirations are discarded as if they never existed.

It's time to force the issue: The Iraqi parliament, the only body elected by the Iraqi people, wants some say over the continuing presence of foreign troops on its soil, and a majority of its lawmakers, like a majority of both Americans and Iraqis, wants a timetable for ending the occupation.

----------

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110907C.shtml

Christians of Iraq
Iraq's Minority Communities Look Abroad for Asylum
They are Iraqi Christians, in their sixties, who have fled violent persecution in Baghdad to seek asylum in Sweden.
Full Story:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/arsenault/20070914.html

******************************************

(How in the world can Fox News and Republicans make claim the surge in Iraq is working when horrible things like this are going on? It's complete dishonesty. How can we call Iraq a young democracy when religious freedoms aren't even being protected over there?)

Listen to Butte, he knows what he is talking about. Fox News is not really a news organization. It's more of an opinion station. I used to watch it before I finally got sick of Fox News defending the two war criminals in the White House. Bush could screw up royally and Fox News and the Republicans go and kiss Bush's butt. Fox News is nothing Rupert Murdock's mouthpiece to spread his extreme right wing views. It's time to impeach Bush and Cheney and then put them in the Hague for their war crimes and human rights abuses.

Do you think that it is possible to have issue oriented negotiations, politics, with cannibals? Do you think?

Those who negotiate issue oriented politics for political advantage with cannibals end up in the cannibals pot.

When politics, as it is today, resolves itself down to two bipolar constituent groups, one constituent group of cannibals and one constituent group that are not cannibals, it would be extremely unwise for the constituent group that are NOT cannibals to negotiate issue oriented politics for political advantage with the constituent group that ARE cannibals. Politics is the leadership of constituents in their best interest and nonconstituents against their best interest. From the stand point of cannibals, what do you suppose leadership of constituents in their best interest and nonconstituents against their best interest means?

Since the time of Goldwater and Reagan, the 10% minority of the American aristocracy and the 20% minority of the professional middle class as combined duopolistic classes and cultures politically, have resolved themselves into one group of political cannibals preying upon the 70% majority common population as a class and culture; this group of political cannibals are represented politically by the Republican Party and the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, of the Democratic Party.

The only politics that is possible with those who are cannibals and those who are not cannibals is "constituent oriented politics". Much is made in all areas of the media about issues and "issue oriented politics", but "issue oriented politics" with cannibals will not counterbalance the drive of constituent oriented cannibalism. Those who are cannibals and those who are not cannibals do not have enough in common politically and morally to have sufficient issues in common to sustain "issue oriented politics", only "constituent oriented politics".

Those who are cannibals and those who are not cannibals differ drastically, both politically and morally, to the extent that commonality of issues do not apply; the only thing that matters is whether or not constituents as a group are cannibals or are not cannibals. Therefore, "constituent oriented politics" the politics of either being a constituent of cannibals or NOT being a constituent of cannibals is all that matters.

Politics in the 21st Century has resolved itself down to a bipolar political choice between those who are political cannibals, the 10% minority of the American aristocracy and the 20% minority of the professional middle class, that as cannibals prey on the 70% majority common population as a class and culture; and, a second political choice, those who are not political cannibals. The 70% majority common population have made a second choice not to be political cannibals, and have therefore become the prey of those who have chosen to be political cannibals.

The 70% majority common population of the United States must deal with its cannibal problem by way of "constituent oriented politics", rather than to continue to talk "issue oriented politics" with cannibals.

The 70% majority common population of the United States must become aware that there is no basis for "issue oriented politics" between those who are cannibals and those who are not cannibals; the only possibility between those who are cannibals and those who are not cannibals is "constituent oriented politics", and "constituent oriented politics" will resolve itself down to which side is stronger, which side will end up in the pot, or which side will change the "culture of cannibalism".

Thomas - The Democrats are just as much cannibals as all the others who debate bipolar issues in American politics. All the democrats on the ballot do the same thing. So keep on preaching from your soapbox. You sound like a freshman Political Science major at the Community College of Rhode Island.

You cite wedge "sources" like Fox news and CNN...sure it has been a deadly year in Iraq. But according to the leading research centers (including the liberal Brookings Institute) the latter half of the year has seen violence drop by over 60%. Think about it. A surge of troops into the theatre will present more targets and more could die. The good side (if there is a good side) is that the last four months have seen a dramatic decline of attacks in Iraq. I don't know about you, but I think that is some kind evidence that what we are doing is working. This party needs some real insight.